| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, nbazin(at)ingenico(dot)com(dot)au, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Bug #581: Sequence cannot be deleted |
| Date: | 2002-02-12 22:17:01 |
| Message-ID: | 25046.1013552221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Is there any reason for the default value (31 characters?),
It's historical AFAIK.
> or are there
> any performance issues associated with longer values?
Larger values would definitely waste space in the system tables (since
type name is fixed-width). Bigger system tables = more I/O = some
amount of slowdown. I have not heard that anyone has tried to measure
the cost. It might be negligible; we just don't know.
I believe we'd be happy to change the number as soon as someone does the
legwork to quantify what it's going to cost.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-02-12 22:24:53 | Re: Bug #583: Wrong example in 7.2 Tutorial |
| Previous Message | Nishad Prakash | 2002-02-12 22:10:12 | Re: Bug #584: postgresql will not build on Solaris with cc |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Innes | 2002-02-12 22:25:33 | Re: [BUGS] Bug #581: Sequence cannot be deleted |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-12 22:07:01 | Re: Add free-behind capability for large sequential scans |